‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›
 
   
 

The necessary evil of racial identity politics for whites

 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  483
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
15 January 2019 08:53
 
burt - 14 January 2019 10:37 PM

Maybe we ought to give all the white nationalists their own country (maybe Arkansas - was going to say Texas but EN would be offended) then let them sink into obscurity and degeneration. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/


“The lesson: when we hear dissent from someone who is different from us, it provokes more thought than when it comes from someone who looks like us.”

Yes, people often care more about the messenger than the message…..therein lies the entire problem with racial diversity.

So this article basically takes one small context in which racial diversity produces better results, and ignores all the problems racial diversity produces.  This is considered smart?

A smart person views the entire picture, they don’t obsessively focus on the one positive thing their idea produces.

And notice in the small group experiment, they discussed the death penalty and child labor practices…..they didn’t discuss immigration or use of police force, or any numbers of issues that are FAR more relevant to public discourse (and which are far more divided along racial lines).

In other words, this result of the study is this:  “If a racially diverse group of people all agree to sit down in the same room and talk about mundane political topics, it produces better discourse than if a racially homogeneous group of people all agree to sit down in the same room about mundane political topics.”


Not very impressive.  In the real world, there is generally no face-to-face, the topics aren’t mundane, and there is no built-in 15 minute minimum.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6389
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
15 January 2019 10:57
 
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 08:39 AM
Jb8989 - 13 January 2019 08:29 AM
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 07:44 AM
Jb8989 - 12 January 2019 07:51 PM

I’m wondering if this has been addressed yet. I’m wondering whether affording yourself autonomy in a world rife with discrimination is a requisite to intelligence? Regardless of any other biological characteristics, I would think that genetically highly intelligent people would impliedly avoid being subject to discrimination.

Ashkenazi Jews have the highest intelligence of any race, but popular hatred against them has been among the worst. Lower-intelligence races tend to be merely looked down upon, ridiculed and dismissed, but higher-intelligence races tend to be feared and hated with a conspiratorial zealous rage. The higher-IQ races have the greatest risk when they are in the minority.

First of all, that’s interesting from a sociological perspective and I wonder what the research is on it? But secondly, you said that your viewpoint on this is very bottom up, and I agree that it seems that way. However, from a bottom up perspective wouldn’t it be true that intelligent people should have more influence over the collective conscience that guides politics and populism? Especially since naturally they understand its impact better than others? Theoretically intelligence should outweigh minority status from a variety of cultural perspectives, I would imagine. Otherwise we’re talking about intelligence very narrowly.

If there is a collective racial conscience, then they can work together to defend their race. I think Ashkenazi Jews have done that to great effect since the end of World War 2. Otherwise, their ideas would be influential but scattered in all directions and divided against themselves, and they would fall victim to the hateful external mobs unified against them.

The notion of defending one’s race in this context reminds me of tribalism. Like there’s something overly prideful about a skin color (although I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying?). IMO it seems like you’re conflating race with culture. Ideas are personal. Ideas that are associated with a particular culture are cross sectional. They do bad or good depending on the your status in what group or which mob.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
15 January 2019 20:57
 
Jb8989 - 15 January 2019 10:57 AM
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 08:39 AM
Jb8989 - 13 January 2019 08:29 AM
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 07:44 AM
Jb8989 - 12 January 2019 07:51 PM

I’m wondering if this has been addressed yet. I’m wondering whether affording yourself autonomy in a world rife with discrimination is a requisite to intelligence? Regardless of any other biological characteristics, I would think that genetically highly intelligent people would impliedly avoid being subject to discrimination.

Ashkenazi Jews have the highest intelligence of any race, but popular hatred against them has been among the worst. Lower-intelligence races tend to be merely looked down upon, ridiculed and dismissed, but higher-intelligence races tend to be feared and hated with a conspiratorial zealous rage. The higher-IQ races have the greatest risk when they are in the minority.

First of all, that’s interesting from a sociological perspective and I wonder what the research is on it? But secondly, you said that your viewpoint on this is very bottom up, and I agree that it seems that way. However, from a bottom up perspective wouldn’t it be true that intelligent people should have more influence over the collective conscience that guides politics and populism? Especially since naturally they understand its impact better than others? Theoretically intelligence should outweigh minority status from a variety of cultural perspectives, I would imagine. Otherwise we’re talking about intelligence very narrowly.

If there is a collective racial conscience, then they can work together to defend their race. I think Ashkenazi Jews have done that to great effect since the end of World War 2. Otherwise, their ideas would be influential but scattered in all directions and divided against themselves, and they would fall victim to the hateful external mobs unified against them.

The notion of defending one’s race in this context reminds me of tribalism. Like there’s something overly prideful about a skin color (although I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying?). IMO it seems like you’re conflating race with culture. Ideas are personal. Ideas that are associated with a particular culture are cross sectional. They do bad or good depending on the your status in what group or which mob.

When I was speaking of the effective defensive position of Ashkenazi Jews, I had no need to make it a racial thing. It can be any kind of social group. If a certain group is hated, then the group can defend themselves if they have a collective group consciousness. And if they have intelligence then they can defend themselves more effectively.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  509
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
16 January 2019 10:01
 
Abel Dean - 07 January 2019 09:07 AM

I do not equate race and skin color. The words “white” and “black” used in the context of human races is shorthand. Saying “white” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in Europe for the last 100,000 years or so,” and saying “black” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 100,000 years or so.” This is not just my habit, but it is a broadly common convention of the English language.

This is not scientific at all.  Just because people have been referring to something in a certain way for a long time does not make it true.  The theory of the four humors dominated western medicine for 2000 years, but as soon as we learned anything about cellular biology it was immediately discredited.

There is no genetic basis for “race”.  Unfortunately for you, this means that the term and the categories implied by it are purely a product of culture and have nothing to do with any sort of biological definition.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
16 January 2019 10:17
 
Garret - 16 January 2019 10:01 AM
Abel Dean - 07 January 2019 09:07 AM

I do not equate race and skin color. The words “white” and “black” used in the context of human races is shorthand. Saying “white” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in Europe for the last 100,000 years or so,” and saying “black” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 100,000 years or so.” This is not just my habit, but it is a broadly common convention of the English language.

This is not scientific at all.  Just because people have been referring to something in a certain way for a long time does not make it true.  The theory of the four humors dominated western medicine for 2000 years, but as soon as we learned anything about cellular biology it was immediately discredited.

There is no genetic basis for “race”.  Unfortunately for you, this means that the term and the categories implied by it are purely a product of culture and have nothing to do with any sort of biological definition.

Supposing that race in reality has nothing to do with biology, supposing it is all just a myth or pseudoscience or whatever, then it is still important to get the intentions correct. Seemingly the only people who equate race with skin color are those who oppose race as a biological concept. Among those who defend the concept of race, it is a concept that covers a vast range of phenotypic differences, and external color is only one of them. We should not be misled by the words “white” and “black,” as though race is only skin color.

The question of whether the concept of race is rooted in biology is an important question, a question beset with confusion, ideological myth and obscurantism, and I expect I will have time to write a new thread about it tonight.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15885
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
16 January 2019 10:46
 
Abel Dean - 16 January 2019 10:17 AM
Garret - 16 January 2019 10:01 AM
Abel Dean - 07 January 2019 09:07 AM

I do not equate race and skin color. The words “white” and “black” used in the context of human races is shorthand. Saying “white” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in Europe for the last 100,000 years or so,” and saying “black” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 100,000 years or so.” This is not just my habit, but it is a broadly common convention of the English language.

This is not scientific at all.  Just because people have been referring to something in a certain way for a long time does not make it true.  The theory of the four humors dominated western medicine for 2000 years, but as soon as we learned anything about cellular biology it was immediately discredited.

There is no genetic basis for “race”.  Unfortunately for you, this means that the term and the categories implied by it are purely a product of culture and have nothing to do with any sort of biological definition.

Seemingly the only people who equate race with skin color are those who oppose race as a biological concept.

That is bs, are you aware of the “one drop” rule? Have you ever spent time in the deep south? There are lots of people there who equate race with skin color and believe it’s not only biological but God mandated.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
16 January 2019 10:51
 
burt - 16 January 2019 10:46 AM
Abel Dean - 16 January 2019 10:17 AM
Garret - 16 January 2019 10:01 AM
Abel Dean - 07 January 2019 09:07 AM

I do not equate race and skin color. The words “white” and “black” used in the context of human races is shorthand. Saying “white” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in Europe for the last 100,000 years or so,” and saying “black” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 100,000 years or so.” This is not just my habit, but it is a broadly common convention of the English language.

This is not scientific at all.  Just because people have been referring to something in a certain way for a long time does not make it true.  The theory of the four humors dominated western medicine for 2000 years, but as soon as we learned anything about cellular biology it was immediately discredited.

There is no genetic basis for “race”.  Unfortunately for you, this means that the term and the categories implied by it are purely a product of culture and have nothing to do with any sort of biological definition.

Seemingly the only people who equate race with skin color are those who oppose race as a biological concept.

That is bs, are you aware of the “one drop” rule? Have you ever spent time in the deep south? There are lots of people there who equate race with skin color and believe it’s not only biological but God mandated.

I spent a few years in dixieland, and I don’t accept the one drop rule, but if we were to accept it then it would conflict with the idea that race is just skin color. The otherwise-white folk with one drop of black blood have white skin, but they would be black under the one drop rule. So who believes race is just skin color?

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  509
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
16 January 2019 12:37
 
Abel Dean - 16 January 2019 10:17 AM
Garret - 16 January 2019 10:01 AM
Abel Dean - 07 January 2019 09:07 AM

I do not equate race and skin color. The words “white” and “black” used in the context of human races is shorthand. Saying “white” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in Europe for the last 100,000 years or so,” and saying “black” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 100,000 years or so.” This is not just my habit, but it is a broadly common convention of the English language.

This is not scientific at all.  Just because people have been referring to something in a certain way for a long time does not make it true.  The theory of the four humors dominated western medicine for 2000 years, but as soon as we learned anything about cellular biology it was immediately discredited.

There is no genetic basis for “race”.  Unfortunately for you, this means that the term and the categories implied by it are purely a product of culture and have nothing to do with any sort of biological definition.

Supposing that race in reality has nothing to do with biology, supposing it is all just a myth or pseudoscience or whatever, then it is still important to get the intentions correct. Seemingly the only people who equate race with skin color are those who oppose race as a biological concept. Among those who defend the concept of race, it is a concept that covers a vast range of phenotypic differences, and external color is only one of them. We should not be misled by the words “white” and “black,” as though race is only skin color.

The question of whether the concept of race is rooted in biology is an important question, a question beset with confusion, ideological myth and obscurantism, and I expect I will have time to write a new thread about it tonight.

Seriously, you’re grasping at straws.

Race as a concept developed from the 16th to 19th centuries before it became solidified into the categories we colloquially understand them now.  Since then we’ve learned a vast amount about genetics, all of which tells us that the racial categories that were created centuries ago are completely useless in regards to genetics.

You refer to genetics constantly, and attempt to apply them to these racial categories. I want to see the evidence you have that these racial categories are relevant to genetics.  To me it’s clear that you have not actually read up on the science of this topic, because the things you keep saying make no sense in regards to the study of genetics.

I agree that the word “race” exists, and has meaning within our culture.  I’m not arguing that.  What I want to see is your evidence that we should consider the term scientific (with regards to biology, dna, genetics, etc).

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15885
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
16 January 2019 12:41
 
Abel Dean - 16 January 2019 10:51 AM
burt - 16 January 2019 10:46 AM
Abel Dean - 16 January 2019 10:17 AM
Garret - 16 January 2019 10:01 AM
Abel Dean - 07 January 2019 09:07 AM

I do not equate race and skin color. The words “white” and “black” used in the context of human races is shorthand. Saying “white” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in Europe for the last 100,000 years or so,” and saying “black” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 100,000 years or so.” This is not just my habit, but it is a broadly common convention of the English language.

This is not scientific at all.  Just because people have been referring to something in a certain way for a long time does not make it true.  The theory of the four humors dominated western medicine for 2000 years, but as soon as we learned anything about cellular biology it was immediately discredited.

There is no genetic basis for “race”.  Unfortunately for you, this means that the term and the categories implied by it are purely a product of culture and have nothing to do with any sort of biological definition.

Seemingly the only people who equate race with skin color are those who oppose race as a biological concept.

That is bs, are you aware of the “one drop” rule? Have you ever spent time in the deep south? There are lots of people there who equate race with skin color and believe it’s not only biological but God mandated.

I spent a few years in dixieland, and I don’t accept the one drop rule, but if we were to accept it then it would conflict with the idea that race is just skin color. The otherwise-white folk with one drop of black blood have white skin, but they would be black under the one drop rule. So who believes race is just skin color?

Equivocation.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
16 January 2019 13:06
 
Garret - 16 January 2019 12:37 PM
Abel Dean - 16 January 2019 10:17 AM
Garret - 16 January 2019 10:01 AM
Abel Dean - 07 January 2019 09:07 AM

I do not equate race and skin color. The words “white” and “black” used in the context of human races is shorthand. Saying “white” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in Europe for the last 100,000 years or so,” and saying “black” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 100,000 years or so.” This is not just my habit, but it is a broadly common convention of the English language.

This is not scientific at all.  Just because people have been referring to something in a certain way for a long time does not make it true.  The theory of the four humors dominated western medicine for 2000 years, but as soon as we learned anything about cellular biology it was immediately discredited.

There is no genetic basis for “race”.  Unfortunately for you, this means that the term and the categories implied by it are purely a product of culture and have nothing to do with any sort of biological definition.

Supposing that race in reality has nothing to do with biology, supposing it is all just a myth or pseudoscience or whatever, then it is still important to get the intentions correct. Seemingly the only people who equate race with skin color are those who oppose race as a biological concept. Among those who defend the concept of race, it is a concept that covers a vast range of phenotypic differences, and external color is only one of them. We should not be misled by the words “white” and “black,” as though race is only skin color.

The question of whether the concept of race is rooted in biology is an important question, a question beset with confusion, ideological myth and obscurantism, and I expect I will have time to write a new thread about it tonight.

Seriously, you’re grasping at straws.

Race as a concept developed from the 16th to 19th centuries before it became solidified into the categories we colloquially understand them now.  Since then we’ve learned a vast amount about genetics, all of which tells us that the racial categories that were created centuries ago are completely useless in regards to genetics.

You refer to genetics constantly, and attempt to apply them to these racial categories. I want to see the evidence you have that these racial categories are relevant to genetics.  To me it’s clear that you have not actually read up on the science of this topic, because the things you keep saying make no sense in regards to the study of genetics.

I agree that the word “race” exists, and has meaning within our culture.  I’m not arguing that.  What I want to see is your evidence that we should consider the term scientific (with regards to biology, dna, genetics, etc).

OK, I will write a new thread about it tonight and I will tag you if I do. It is important, because the ideology has effectively crippled American anthropology, and the ideology needs to be actively opposed.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
16 January 2019 13:10
 
burt - 16 January 2019 12:41 PM
Abel Dean - 16 January 2019 10:51 AM
burt - 16 January 2019 10:46 AM
Abel Dean - 16 January 2019 10:17 AM
Garret - 16 January 2019 10:01 AM
Abel Dean - 07 January 2019 09:07 AM

I do not equate race and skin color. The words “white” and “black” used in the context of human races is shorthand. Saying “white” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in Europe for the last 100,000 years or so,” and saying “black” is shorter than saying “peoples of ancestry concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 100,000 years or so.” This is not just my habit, but it is a broadly common convention of the English language.

This is not scientific at all.  Just because people have been referring to something in a certain way for a long time does not make it true.  The theory of the four humors dominated western medicine for 2000 years, but as soon as we learned anything about cellular biology it was immediately discredited.

There is no genetic basis for “race”.  Unfortunately for you, this means that the term and the categories implied by it are purely a product of culture and have nothing to do with any sort of biological definition.

Seemingly the only people who equate race with skin color are those who oppose race as a biological concept.

That is bs, are you aware of the “one drop” rule? Have you ever spent time in the deep south? There are lots of people there who equate race with skin color and believe it’s not only biological but God mandated.

I spent a few years in dixieland, and I don’t accept the one drop rule, but if we were to accept it then it would conflict with the idea that race is just skin color. The otherwise-white folk with one drop of black blood have white skin, but they would be black under the one drop rule. So who believes race is just skin color?

Equivocation.

No. My words were clear. The problem is that you offered an example that directly conflicts with your claim. Ideology is not just about being wrong. An ideology can be entirely correct and still hinder reasoning with everything it touches.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  509
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
16 January 2019 13:18
 
Abel Dean - 16 January 2019 01:06 PM

OK, I will write a new thread about it tonight and I will tag you if I do. It is important, because the ideology has effectively crippled American anthropology, and the ideology needs to be actively opposed.

This has nothing to do with ideology.  Show me evidence in the field of genetics that supports the 5 racial categories.  Either this evidence exists, in which case you can show it to me, or it doesn’t (which means you are making unfounded claims).

You’re on this forum, which I assume means that you value rational thought.  Rational thought requires evidence.  Show me the evidence.

On the other hand, this would be a perfect opportunity for you to acknowledge that race has no basis in genetics, and is purely a product of culture.  As a cultural phenomenon, race does indeed exist, and I don’t dispute this.

But you’ve made claims about genetics.  Either you have evidence for those claims, or you don’t.

[ Edited: 16 January 2019 13:21 by Garret]
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6389
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
16 January 2019 18:08
 
Abel Dean - 15 January 2019 08:57 PM
Jb8989 - 15 January 2019 10:57 AM
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 08:39 AM
Jb8989 - 13 January 2019 08:29 AM
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 07:44 AM
Jb8989 - 12 January 2019 07:51 PM

I’m wondering if this has been addressed yet. I’m wondering whether affording yourself autonomy in a world rife with discrimination is a requisite to intelligence? Regardless of any other biological characteristics, I would think that genetically highly intelligent people would impliedly avoid being subject to discrimination.

Ashkenazi Jews have the highest intelligence of any race, but popular hatred against them has been among the worst. Lower-intelligence races tend to be merely looked down upon, ridiculed and dismissed, but higher-intelligence races tend to be feared and hated with a conspiratorial zealous rage. The higher-IQ races have the greatest risk when they are in the minority.

First of all, that’s interesting from a sociological perspective and I wonder what the research is on it? But secondly, you said that your viewpoint on this is very bottom up, and I agree that it seems that way. However, from a bottom up perspective wouldn’t it be true that intelligent people should have more influence over the collective conscience that guides politics and populism? Especially since naturally they understand its impact better than others? Theoretically intelligence should outweigh minority status from a variety of cultural perspectives, I would imagine. Otherwise we’re talking about intelligence very narrowly.

If there is a collective racial conscience, then they can work together to defend their race. I think Ashkenazi Jews have done that to great effect since the end of World War 2. Otherwise, their ideas would be influential but scattered in all directions and divided against themselves, and they would fall victim to the hateful external mobs unified against them.

The notion of defending one’s race in this context reminds me of tribalism. Like there’s something overly prideful about a skin color (although I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying?). IMO it seems like you’re conflating race with culture. Ideas are personal. Ideas that are associated with a particular culture are cross sectional. They do bad or good depending on the your status in what group or which mob.

When I was speaking of the effective defensive position of Ashkenazi Jews, I had no need to make it a racial thing. It can be any kind of social group. If a certain group is hated, then the group can defend themselves if they have a collective group consciousness. And if they have intelligence then they can defend themselves more effectively.

There’s an important distinction between being hated and being discriminated against.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
16 January 2019 18:17
 
Jb8989 - 16 January 2019 06:08 PM
Abel Dean - 15 January 2019 08:57 PM
Jb8989 - 15 January 2019 10:57 AM
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 08:39 AM
Jb8989 - 13 January 2019 08:29 AM
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 07:44 AM
Jb8989 - 12 January 2019 07:51 PM

I’m wondering if this has been addressed yet. I’m wondering whether affording yourself autonomy in a world rife with discrimination is a requisite to intelligence? Regardless of any other biological characteristics, I would think that genetically highly intelligent people would impliedly avoid being subject to discrimination.

Ashkenazi Jews have the highest intelligence of any race, but popular hatred against them has been among the worst. Lower-intelligence races tend to be merely looked down upon, ridiculed and dismissed, but higher-intelligence races tend to be feared and hated with a conspiratorial zealous rage. The higher-IQ races have the greatest risk when they are in the minority.

First of all, that’s interesting from a sociological perspective and I wonder what the research is on it? But secondly, you said that your viewpoint on this is very bottom up, and I agree that it seems that way. However, from a bottom up perspective wouldn’t it be true that intelligent people should have more influence over the collective conscience that guides politics and populism? Especially since naturally they understand its impact better than others? Theoretically intelligence should outweigh minority status from a variety of cultural perspectives, I would imagine. Otherwise we’re talking about intelligence very narrowly.

If there is a collective racial conscience, then they can work together to defend their race. I think Ashkenazi Jews have done that to great effect since the end of World War 2. Otherwise, their ideas would be influential but scattered in all directions and divided against themselves, and they would fall victim to the hateful external mobs unified against them.

The notion of defending one’s race in this context reminds me of tribalism. Like there’s something overly prideful about a skin color (although I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying?). IMO it seems like you’re conflating race with culture. Ideas are personal. Ideas that are associated with a particular culture are cross sectional. They do bad or good depending on the your status in what group or which mob.

When I was speaking of the effective defensive position of Ashkenazi Jews, I had no need to make it a racial thing. It can be any kind of social group. If a certain group is hated, then the group can defend themselves if they have a collective group consciousness. And if they have intelligence then they can defend themselves more effectively.

There’s an important distinction between being hated and being discriminated against.

I agree. The higher-class races tend to be the targets of hate, whereas the lower-class races tend to be the targets of discrimination.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
16 January 2019 18:48
 

AD:
I agree. The higher-class races tend to be the targets of hate, whereas the lower-class races tend to be the targets of discrimination.

If they’re not hated (or disliked), why have they faced discrimination?

 
‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›