[Politics] What matters more? My Sex or my Race? (Interesting MCU conversation explored)

Recommended Videos
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
Dreiko said:
See, I disagree with that.


Sure, enslaved blacks escaped, they didn't want to BE slaves. Not wanting to be a slave yourself is not the same as slavery ending. Most everyone doesn't want to be the slave, even those who thought slavery is awesome and fought a civil war to retain it would have tried to escape if it came to be that they were slaves somehow. That's not enough to show that someone's against slavery, that's just showing they're against being the slave themselves.

Anti-slavery movements from people who weren't themselves slaves, from people against slavery as a thing and not merely against it being perpetrated on them, begun in the UK. Before that lots of peoples had both been enslaved and held/sold slaves but they never seemed to end slavery when it was within their capacity to be the owner and not the slave up until that point.
William Still

Sojourner Truth

Harriet Tubman

Mary and John Meachum

Jermain Wesley Loguen

Samuel Burris

John Parker (born a Free Black Man who thought it was his duty to help others be Free, mind you)

Louis Napoleon

Robert Purvis

Josiah Henson (provided Slaves with skills in Canada so they could find work.)

Just to name the more famous Ex Slaves and Free Born who risked Death to help their people.

And oh, yes. It was death on the line.

In the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, the federal government gave local authorities in both slave and free states the power to issue warrants to "remove" any black they thought to be an escaped slave. It also made it a federal crime to help a runaway slave. The act was rarely enforced in non-slave states, but in 1850 it was strengthened with higher fines and harsher punishments. On top of that, slave hunters could legally claim that any black person they saw was an escaped slave, which not only terrorized free blacks but outraged many white people. Northerners were horrified by rumors of slave hunters luring preschool-age free black children onto boats and shipping them to the Deep South.

Before 1850, if runaway slaves were caught, they were typically killed, and sometimes tortured in a public display to scare other slaves. Punishment in the North for white people and free blacks who assisted in escapes was originally not as harsh -- typically a fine for the loss of "property" and a short jail sentence that might not be enforced. But in 1850, penalties became much steeper and included more jail time. Whites who armed slaves, which was often necessary along the dangerous route, could be executed. In the South, anyone -- white or black -- who assisted a fugitive could face death.
(Source [https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/underground-railroad2.htm])

We didn't get into the fact that Ten percent of the US Northern Army consisted of Black Men trying to go home to get their families out of bondage.

By the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war?30,000 of infection or disease. Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. There were nearly 80 black commissioned officers. Black women, who could not formally join the Army, nonetheless served as nurses, spies, and scouts, the most famous being Harriet Tubman (photo citation: 200-HN-PIO-1), who scouted for the 2d South Carolina Volunteers.

Because of prejudice against them, black units were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been. Nevertheless, the soldiers served with distinction in a number of battles. Black infantrymen fought gallantly at Milliken's Bend, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Petersburg, VA; and Nashville, TN. The July 1863 assault on Fort Wagner, SC, in which the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers lost two-thirds of their officers and half of their troops, was memorably dramatized in the film Glory. By war's end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor for their valor.

In addition to the perils of war faced by all Civil War soldiers, black soldiers faced additional problems stemming from racial prejudice. Racial discrimination was prevalent even in the North, and discriminatory practices permeated the U.S. military. Segregated units were formed with black enlisted men and typically commanded by white officers and black noncommissioned officers. The 54th Massachusetts was commanded by Robert Shaw and the 1st South Carolina by Thomas Wentworth Higginson?both white. Black soldiers were initially paid $10 per month from which $3 was automatically deducted for clothing, resulting in a net pay of $7. In contrast, white soldiers received $13 per month from which no clothing allowance was drawn. In June 1864 Congress granted equal pay to the U.S. Colored Troops and made the action retroactive. Black soldiers received the same rations and supplies. In addition, they received comparable medical care.

The black troops, however, faced greater peril than white troops when captured by the Confederate Army. In 1863 the Confederate Congress threatened to punish severely officers of black troops and to enslave black soldiers. As a result, President Lincoln issued General Order 233, threatening reprisal on Confederate prisoners of war (POWs) for any mistreatment of black troops. Although the threat generally restrained the Confederates, black captives were typically treated more harshly than white captives. In perhaps the most heinous known example of abuse, Confederate soldiers shot to death black Union soldiers captured at the Fort Pillow, TN, engagement of 1864. Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest witnessed the massacre and did nothing to stop it.
(Source [https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war])

Listen, I don't know you from Adam, Dreiko. But these are facts that are well known. An easy search on the internet. That's what makes this look so bad. It seems like the comments are made from ignorance, be it unintentional or willing. And Both has their downsides.

Let's just stop this whole thing, alright? Amicable Break, recharge, and let's come at another topic with a more tolerant outlook.
 

the December King

Member
Legacy
Mar 3, 2010
1,580
1
3
Saelune said:
the December King said:
Saelune said:
the December King said:
Saelune said:
Hawki said:
Lil devils x said:
Slavery is against the core beliefs of tribes all over the world who believed that no person could own a piece of the earth or those that dwell upon it, but instead we had to be granted permission by respecting all things. This is a shared belief among tribes in the Americas, Australia, Africa and others.
Not disputing any of that, but you'll find plenty of evidence for slavery in the Americas and Africa as well. Even in Australia, you'd just have to hop across the pond to find slavery being practiced.

" property ownership" as understood by Europeans was a later invention at odds with many cultures beliefs and not shared by much of the outside world.
Define "property ownership," because unless you're equating it with capitalism, you'll find plenty of examples in other civilizations on other continents.
What is your goal here? To prove that lots of people are terrible? Cause uh, duh?

Slavery was never ok. That large portions of the world went for centuries thinking it was ok is just proof that people are more bad than good and that anyone who thinks things cant get worse today are very very wrong.
I won't put words in Hawki's mouth, but I suspect that slavery was not invented in Europe. So, not so much that 'lots of people were terrible', but that there were terrible people everywhere.
Slavery was not invented in a single place. Too much of this conversation though is a petty excuse to defend white people participating in slavery and it is absolutely to defend racism.
Fair enough. I'm not going to defend white people's participation in the slave trade, modern or otherwise. Just wanted to clarify that other peoples have dealt in slaves, too.
Slavery is evil, period. But slavery in America was 100% racism and any pretending otherwise is racist.
Sure. I wouldn't argue against that at all.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
ObsidianJones said:
Ok, so you're citing me a lot. So I'm going to clear a few things up...
I think you're misconstruing where I'm going with this. Let me clarify a bit to move the conversation forward.

You're not alone in having experienced the scenario you've described above. Like I said, it's pretty much the norm nowadays, and sadly, no, it doesn't come from any particular group of activists or members of the progressive community in a vacuum. Even from and among friends, I can attest to that personally.

It's ironic Frederick Douglass came up in the day or so since I checked the thread, since it's specifically because of him (and his...interactions...with Elizabeth Cady Stanton) I brought up Seneca Falls. That's to point out this isn't a new phenomenon -- more like a renewed phenomenon in post-civil rights era progressive discourse.

The way I see it, the fact your question "has" to be asked at all is the problem. It's endemic of a landscape where differences in struggles are considered more important than common ground. That comes, in my opinion, from the pervasiveness of intersectionality. I agree in principle conversation is at least important in that it leads to organization and action, but for that to occur conversation has to be productive, and I don't believe productive and meaningful conversation can occur in such a landscape.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,179
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Saelune said:
Participating in a conversation relies on a goal. From 'gaining information' to trying to persuade a point. You clearly had some sort of goal to interject, or you would not have interjected.
No, you don't. You really don't. If this was a debate, then yes, there'd be a goal, but conversation isn't predicated on having a goal. And if it was, this thread lost its "goal" long ago, as we shifted from discussing whether sex or race matters more, to slavery.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,370
3,163
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Abomination said:
erttheking said:
Dreiko said:
White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.
Do you think Fredrick Douglas is a fairy tale?
He was born 11 years after the British Empire started applying military pressure to end slavery on a global scale.

The point Dreiko was trying to make is that if you want to really make a social change, you want to encourage those in power to take up your cause. But you don't convince those in power to take up your cause by hurling insults at them when they start to offer their opinion on the best way to achieve your goal.

The US required a civil war that resulted in the deaths of over half a million people to end slavery. The British Empire passed it with legislation and no civil war. Of course, the political structure of both nations was very very different but one can't help but agree that the British Empire obtained the better result.
African American waited patiently after the civil war for the equality they promised. No one will deny that it took 100 years before Civil Rights happened. All the while, African Americans had to suck up to the very people persecuting them. It didn't take 'talking nicely' to get Civil Rights. It took rioting in the streets. Getting in the presidents face. Forcing him to act. Making Whitey stand up for their own principles. The Civil War and Revolutionary war are other examples of how to effect social change. The last thing they are were nice.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
Agema said:
Dreiko said:
Yeah, that's just... racist.
[insert contemptuous snort here]

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.
No, white people had the power (in countries where they were demographically dominant) to end slavery.

There's this unproven implied notion here that having first hand experience of a particular group's issues makes one more suitable to solving them. I seen absolutely no support for that argument.
Normally, having experience of something would be considered a major plus in their ability to understand and solve a problem. That's the sort of reason a plumber might examine your pipes before trying to fix a leak rather than just diving in and rearranging it with whatever wrenches and copper piping he has lying around the back of the van.
Being a slave or oppressed is not the same as being a professor of anti-slavery or an expert civil rights activist. There is of course a lot of crossover but one needs to do a lot more things before they get to have the credibility they claim to have.

What you're saying is that someone is by definition more apt at plumbing because they grew up in the sewers. I'm the one who says that if someone got trained to be a plumber, no matter what their background, you gotta listen to them. Similarly, no matter what their background, an activist trained and expert at solving civil rights issues is who you want to have in your organization's leadership, even if they happen to be white.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Dreiko said:
Agema said:
Dreiko said:
Yeah, that's just... racist.
[insert contemptuous snort here]

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.
No, white people had the power (in countries where they were demographically dominant) to end slavery.

There's this unproven implied notion here that having first hand experience of a particular group's issues makes one more suitable to solving them. I seen absolutely no support for that argument.
Normally, having experience of something would be considered a major plus in their ability to understand and solve a problem. That's the sort of reason a plumber might examine your pipes before trying to fix a leak rather than just diving in and rearranging it with whatever wrenches and copper piping he has lying around the back of the van.
Being a slave or oppressed is not the same as being a professor of anti-slavery or an expert civil rights activist. There is of course a lot of crossover but one needs to do a lot more things before they get to have the credibility they claim to have.

What you're saying is that someone is by definition more apt at plumbing because they grew up in the sewers. I'm the one who says that if someone got trained to be a plumber, no matter what their background, you gotta listen to them. Similarly, no matter what their background, an activist trained and expert at solving civil rights issues is who you want to have in your organization's leadership, even if they happen to be white.
A plumber that's trained in plumbing and also grew up around the sewers is probably the best combination then. And as someone who grew up in the sewers I would trust someone I knew and could relate to over someone who only trained in plumbing


I clearly remember you rallying against game journalists who couldn't play hard games, but were trained in journalism and writing.

If training in a particular cultural field is enough to represent that culture, why do gamerz care that John journalism can't beat bloodborne
No, I don't see where you grew up as mattering at all actually. Only how good you are at plumbing, as determined by tests and exams and whatnot, ought matter.


As for games journalists, you're confusing them for general journalists or writers. Being a games journalist has more requirements than being a general journalist, similarly to how being a film critic who never sat through the entirety of Citizen Kane would raise some eyebrows and bring your credibility into question, as would being unable to beat certain games, even if your writing was fine.

Though, that's not an entirely fair description you have of my stance either, if a journalist can't beat BB they can just write about other games. I'm not saying they should outright change jobs.

Nobody is compelling them to write about a game that's too hard for them, right? You do need someone to write about the next Lego game (and this is not a dig at Lego games, I love those and I think they're great for introducing children to gaming) but I don't see why someone would go out of their way to write about a game they can't beat and carry themselves as though they have expertise about it that they do not deserve. That action in and of itself is most suspect for me. It makes everything else they have to say come into question.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Dreiko said:
undeadsuitor said:
Dreiko said:
Agema said:
Dreiko said:
Yeah, that's just... racist.
[insert contemptuous snort here]

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.
No, white people had the power (in countries where they were demographically dominant) to end slavery.

There's this unproven implied notion here that having first hand experience of a particular group's issues makes one more suitable to solving them. I seen absolutely no support for that argument.
Normally, having experience of something would be considered a major plus in their ability to understand and solve a problem. That's the sort of reason a plumber might examine your pipes before trying to fix a leak rather than just diving in and rearranging it with whatever wrenches and copper piping he has lying around the back of the van.
Being a slave or oppressed is not the same as being a professor of anti-slavery or an expert civil rights activist. There is of course a lot of crossover but one needs to do a lot more things before they get to have the credibility they claim to have.

What you're saying is that someone is by definition more apt at plumbing because they grew up in the sewers. I'm the one who says that if someone got trained to be a plumber, no matter what their background, you gotta listen to them. Similarly, no matter what their background, an activist trained and expert at solving civil rights issues is who you want to have in your organization's leadership, even if they happen to be white.
A plumber that's trained in plumbing and also grew up around the sewers is probably the best combination then. And as someone who grew up in the sewers I would trust someone I knew and could relate to over someone who only trained in plumbing


I clearly remember you rallying against game journalists who couldn't play hard games, but were trained in journalism and writing.

If training in a particular cultural field is enough to represent that culture, why do gamerz care that John journalism can't beat bloodborne
No, I don't see where you grew up as mattering at all actually. Only how good you are at plumbing, as determined by tests and exams and whatnot, ought matter.


As for games journalists, you're confusing them for general journalists or writers. Being a games journalist has more requirements than being a general journalist, similarly to how being a film critic who never sat through the entirety of Citizen Kane would raise some eyebrows and bring your credibility into question, as would being unable to beat certain games, even if your writing was fine.

Though, that's not an entirely fair description you have of my stance either, if a journalist can't beat BB they can just write about other games. I'm not saying they should outright change jobs.

Nobody is compelling them to write about a game that's too hard for them, right? You do need someone to write about the next Lego game (and this is not a dig at Lego games, I love those and I think they're great for introducing children to gaming) but I don't see why someone would go out of their way to write about a game they can't beat and carry themselves as though they have expertise about it that they do not deserve. That action in and of itself is most suspect for me. It makes everything else they have to say come into question.
So what you're saying is that to represent a group of people, someone should share some qualities and experiences of those people?
If you're referring to the game's journalists, I don't view their job as representing people, I view it as representing the game through the prism of their opinion and experience with it. The more incomplete their experience the less of the game will shine through so the worse of a job they'll do. A lot of times, especially with competitive games, you get people who THINK they have experienced the game, but in fact haven't, so what shines through is a distortion that's just grating to contemplate holding weight in the minds of the less informed.

It's all about how good you are at doing the job at hand and not about other side-factors.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Dreiko said:
Agema said:
Dreiko said:
Yeah, that's just... racist.
[insert contemptuous snort here]

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.
No, white people had the power (in countries where they were demographically dominant) to end slavery.

There's this unproven implied notion here that having first hand experience of a particular group's issues makes one more suitable to solving them. I seen absolutely no support for that argument.
Normally, having experience of something would be considered a major plus in their ability to understand and solve a problem. That's the sort of reason a plumber might examine your pipes before trying to fix a leak rather than just diving in and rearranging it with whatever wrenches and copper piping he has lying around the back of the van.
Being a slave or oppressed is not the same as being a professor of anti-slavery or an expert civil rights activist. There is of course a lot of crossover but one needs to do a lot more things before they get to have the credibility they claim to have.

What you're saying is that someone is by definition more apt at plumbing because they grew up in the sewers. I'm the one who says that if someone got trained to be a plumber, no matter what their background, you gotta listen to them. Similarly, no matter what their background, an activist trained and expert at solving civil rights issues is who you want to have in your organization's leadership, even if they happen to be white.
Haiti says hi. Oh by the way. Haiti exists. So much for that horseshit about whites inventing abolition.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Dreiko said:
undeadsuitor said:
Dreiko said:
undeadsuitor said:
Dreiko said:
Agema said:
Dreiko said:
Yeah, that's just... racist.
[insert contemptuous snort here]

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.
No, white people had the power (in countries where they were demographically dominant) to end slavery.

There's this unproven implied notion here that having first hand experience of a particular group's issues makes one more suitable to solving them. I seen absolutely no support for that argument.
Normally, having experience of something would be considered a major plus in their ability to understand and solve a problem. That's the sort of reason a plumber might examine your pipes before trying to fix a leak rather than just diving in and rearranging it with whatever wrenches and copper piping he has lying around the back of the van.
Being a slave or oppressed is not the same as being a professor of anti-slavery or an expert civil rights activist. There is of course a lot of crossover but one needs to do a lot more things before they get to have the credibility they claim to have.

What you're saying is that someone is by definition more apt at plumbing because they grew up in the sewers. I'm the one who says that if someone got trained to be a plumber, no matter what their background, you gotta listen to them. Similarly, no matter what their background, an activist trained and expert at solving civil rights issues is who you want to have in your organization's leadership, even if they happen to be white.
A plumber that's trained in plumbing and also grew up around the sewers is probably the best combination then. And as someone who grew up in the sewers I would trust someone I knew and could relate to over someone who only trained in plumbing


I clearly remember you rallying against game journalists who couldn't play hard games, but were trained in journalism and writing.

If training in a particular cultural field is enough to represent that culture, why do gamerz care that John journalism can't beat bloodborne
No, I don't see where you grew up as mattering at all actually. Only how good you are at plumbing, as determined by tests and exams and whatnot, ought matter.


As for games journalists, you're confusing them for general journalists or writers. Being a games journalist has more requirements than being a general journalist, similarly to how being a film critic who never sat through the entirety of Citizen Kane would raise some eyebrows and bring your credibility into question, as would being unable to beat certain games, even if your writing was fine.

Though, that's not an entirely fair description you have of my stance either, if a journalist can't beat BB they can just write about other games. I'm not saying they should outright change jobs.

Nobody is compelling them to write about a game that's too hard for them, right? You do need someone to write about the next Lego game (and this is not a dig at Lego games, I love those and I think they're great for introducing children to gaming) but I don't see why someone would go out of their way to write about a game they can't beat and carry themselves as though they have expertise about it that they do not deserve. That action in and of itself is most suspect for me. It makes everything else they have to say come into question.
So what you're saying is that to represent a group of people, someone should share some qualities and experiences of those people?
If you're referring to the game's journalists, I don't view their job as representing people, I view it as representing the game through the prism of their opinion and experience with it. The more incomplete their experience the less of the game will shine through so the worse of a job they'll do. A lot of times, especially with competitive games, you get people who THINK they have experienced the game, but in fact haven't, so what shines through is a distortion that's just grating to contemplate holding weight in the minds of the less informed.

It's all about how good you are at doing the job at hand and not about other side-factors.
And that's why civil rights activists who are part of the community they represent, and have experienced the hardships their people have, and better at their jobs.

And you want the best people for the job right?
Nothing I said lays the groundwork for someone being inherently more capable at reviewing games because of their upbringing and random general life experiences, it's all about how much work you put in writing and gaming.

Real simple example, imagine you have a black 7 year old with first grade education or a white 50 year old veteran activist, who would be better for coming up with a strategy for civil rights? If you don't pick the 7 year old for some reasons, these same reasons are why anyone can be the best at this job.

I'm not saying that being part of the community is not a factor, I'm just saying it's not insurmountable. I think other factors can make someone better at it than someone who has that insider insight. Hence, your organization should leave open the possibility.


This is not an original thought, I believe the leader of the NAACP was white a few years back.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Saelune said:
It really fucking is. You need to just stop. You 100% are white washing slavery in an attempt to justify white people owning slaves and it is abhorrent of you to do so.

The British Empire committed endless attrocities and no amount of slavery ended by them absolves them.

You want to entirely praise a whole empire while blatantly ignoring its evils? Thats fucked up and hypocritical.
Employ some god damn reading comprehension, Saelune.

Again, I do not have the time or crayons to explain basic English to you.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Dreiko said:
undeadsuitor said:
Dreiko said:
undeadsuitor said:
Dreiko said:
undeadsuitor said:
Dreiko said:
Agema said:
Dreiko said:
Yeah, that's just... racist.
[insert contemptuous snort here]

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.
No, white people had the power (in countries where they were demographically dominant) to end slavery.

There's this unproven implied notion here that having first hand experience of a particular group's issues makes one more suitable to solving them. I seen absolutely no support for that argument.
Normally, having experience of something would be considered a major plus in their ability to understand and solve a problem. That's the sort of reason a plumber might examine your pipes before trying to fix a leak rather than just diving in and rearranging it with whatever wrenches and copper piping he has lying around the back of the van.
Being a slave or oppressed is not the same as being a professor of anti-slavery or an expert civil rights activist. There is of course a lot of crossover but one needs to do a lot more things before they get to have the credibility they claim to have.

What you're saying is that someone is by definition more apt at plumbing because they grew up in the sewers. I'm the one who says that if someone got trained to be a plumber, no matter what their background, you gotta listen to them. Similarly, no matter what their background, an activist trained and expert at solving civil rights issues is who you want to have in your organization's leadership, even if they happen to be white.
A plumber that's trained in plumbing and also grew up around the sewers is probably the best combination then. And as someone who grew up in the sewers I would trust someone I knew and could relate to over someone who only trained in plumbing


I clearly remember you rallying against game journalists who couldn't play hard games, but were trained in journalism and writing.

If training in a particular cultural field is enough to represent that culture, why do gamerz care that John journalism can't beat bloodborne
No, I don't see where you grew up as mattering at all actually. Only how good you are at plumbing, as determined by tests and exams and whatnot, ought matter.


As for games journalists, you're confusing them for general journalists or writers. Being a games journalist has more requirements than being a general journalist, similarly to how being a film critic who never sat through the entirety of Citizen Kane would raise some eyebrows and bring your credibility into question, as would being unable to beat certain games, even if your writing was fine.

Though, that's not an entirely fair description you have of my stance either, if a journalist can't beat BB they can just write about other games. I'm not saying they should outright change jobs.

Nobody is compelling them to write about a game that's too hard for them, right? You do need someone to write about the next Lego game (and this is not a dig at Lego games, I love those and I think they're great for introducing children to gaming) but I don't see why someone would go out of their way to write about a game they can't beat and carry themselves as though they have expertise about it that they do not deserve. That action in and of itself is most suspect for me. It makes everything else they have to say come into question.
So what you're saying is that to represent a group of people, someone should share some qualities and experiences of those people?
If you're referring to the game's journalists, I don't view their job as representing people, I view it as representing the game through the prism of their opinion and experience with it. The more incomplete their experience the less of the game will shine through so the worse of a job they'll do. A lot of times, especially with competitive games, you get people who THINK they have experienced the game, but in fact haven't, so what shines through is a distortion that's just grating to contemplate holding weight in the minds of the less informed.

It's all about how good you are at doing the job at hand and not about other side-factors.
And that's why civil rights activists who are part of the community they represent, and have experienced the hardships their people have, and better at their jobs.

And you want the best people for the job right?
Nothing I said lays the groundwork for someone being inherently more capable at reviewing games because of their upbringing and random general life experiences, it's all about how much work you put in writing and gaming.

Real simple example, imagine you have a black 7 year old with first grade education or a white 50 year old veteran activist, who would be better for coming up with a strategy for civil rights? If you don't pick the 7 year old for some reasons, these same reasons are why anyone can be the best at this job.

I'm not saying that being part of the community is not a factor, I'm just saying it's not insurmountable. I think other factors can make someone better at it than someone who has that insider insight. Hence, your organization should leave open the possibility.


This is not an original thought, I believe the leader of the NAACP was white a few years back.
Why is the only black choice someone in first grade?

Do you think black people's educations stop at first grade? Can you not imagine an adult educated black person?
Because according to their logic, the black 7 year old is more suitable for that job.

At this point this is a silly and absurdist attempt at twisting my words to sound somehow vaguely discriminatory. Why do you think I was implying that? Do you have some deep bias that makes you jump to that assumption as irrational as that jump is? (see how easy it is to do this?)

My point simply is that it's the education, not being black, that truly matters. A hypothetical person may exist that is the most educated out of everyone else and is also black, but you can't be 100% sure that they will be black and not white, hence, your organization ought to be open to anyone.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,370
3,163
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Marik2 said:
Slavery never really ended. It just has extra steps thanks to capitalism.
It's not even the 'wage slave' angle. Abolition hasn't stopped all actual slavery in America. There are an estimated 2.8 million slaves in America right now, which makes it more prevalent than during the Antebellum period.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,370
3,163
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Dreiko said:
trunkage said:
Dreiko said:
White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.
Go home Dreiko, you're drunk.

White people were the only ones able to do anything about slavery in America because minorities were marginalized, especially the slaves. The ideas from slave were NOT valued or even heard. You can tell their attitude though as they kept running away. The slaves thought slavery was terrible and wanted to abolish it but you will never hear about because who cares about beings who aren't 'actually people.' A black person 'couldn't' come up with the idea becuase they didn't have any power or voice.
See, I disagree with that.


Sure, enslaved blacks escaped, they didn't want to BE slaves. Not wanting to be a slave yourself is not the same as slavery ending. Most everyone doesn't want to be the slave, even those who thought slavery is awesome and fought a civil war to retain it would have tried to escape if it came to be that they were slaves somehow. That's not enough to show that someone's against slavery, that's just showing they're against being the slave themselves.

Anti-slavery movements from people who weren't themselves slaves, from people against slavery as a thing and not merely against it being perpetrated on them, begun in the UK. Before that lots of peoples had both been enslaved and held/sold slaves but they never seemed to end slavery when it was within their capacity to be the owner and not the slave up until that point.
Firstly, mine and your interpretation are not mutually exclusive. As poeple have pointed out, many people from different races have been anti-slavery, especially if you're taking a long view like you.

But, as I've stated, slaves have no rights. They are literally unable to talk anything negative about slavery. For fear of beatings or death.

So no, they literally could say anything anti-slavery. But for the exact same reasons Russians couldn't speak against Communism. It was highly likely it lead to death.

But it does raise an important point. The ONLY way for minorities to get the same rights as citizens is for allies (probably white males) to support them. Or more likely, lead the charge
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
Marik2 said:
Slavery never really ended. It just has extra steps thanks to capitalism.
Pretty much. I mean we have people trumpeting the horn in here over British abolition and "warring against" the trans-Atlantic slave trade, as if the British Empire had made a moral decision as opposed to slavery no longer being profitable in the face of the Industrial Revolution, end of mercantilism, death of British colonial aspirations in the Americas, and Caribbean slave revolts running up operating prices and endangering sugar supplies.

Or that the cause of abolition was immediately seized upon by the British to trade war with Spain and Portugal to protect its own economic interests, while simultaneously justifying colonial aspirations in Africa directly, and setting up shop elsewhere in the world whilst relying upon "indentured servants".

Just like in America, the moral arguments in favor of abolition and emancipation had existed for nearly a century before the deed was done, and all of them put together had less impact than a steam engine and a sugar beet.